Natura 2000 Seminars - European...

Natura 2000 Seminars

An initiative of the

Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process

Second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar

Padova - Italy, 21 – 23 June 2017

DRAFT Seminar Report

Natura 2000 Seminars – Second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar

1

Prepared by: ECNC, CEEweb, ELO, EUROPARC

Authors: Neil McIntosh, Jinthe Roelofs

Contributors: Monika Kotulak (CEEweb, setting conservation status objectives & priorities), Federico

Minozzi (EUROPARC, conservation measures and their effectiveness), Emmanuelle

Mikosz (ELO, monitoring and evaluation), Jinthe Roelofs (ECNC, addressing threats and

pressures to Alpine habitats and species).

Editing: Neil McIntosch, Jinthe Roelofs, Glynis van Uden (ECNC)

Copyright: © European Union, 2017

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Funding: European Commission, as part of contract number 07.0307/2012/60517/SER/B.3.

Disclaimer: The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the

European Commission, nor is the European Commission responsible for any use that

might be made of information appearing herein.

Event: For more information on this seminar, see the Natura 2000 Communication Platform:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/events/second_alpi

ne_natura_2000_seminar_en.htm

Relevant documents can be found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/knowledge_base/13

4_alpine_region_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/events/second_alpine_natura_2000_seminar_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/knowledge_base/134_alpine_region_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/knowledge_base/134_alpine_region_en.htm


2

Executive summary The Second Alpine Natura 20000 Seminar took place in Padova, Italy, from 21-23 June 2017. It brought

together 118 Natura 2000 practitioners and expert stakeholders from the Alpine region. Issues of

common interest were discussed in during a field excursion and during working group discussions, and

a number of presentations on a variety of topics were given by the delegates. The presentations

covered, for example, the Low Hanging Fruit (LHF) method, the development of a handbook for habitat

monitoring under the Habitats Directive, better coherence in implementing the Water Framework

Directive and the Birds & Habitats Directives, grassland management in the Alpine Biogeographical

Region, Landcare Associations as a model to implement Natura 2000 and developing conservation

management objectives and condition indicators for monitoring Natura 2000 sites.

The working group discussions were a core element of the Seminar, participants could choose to join

one of the following four groups:

1. Setting conservation status objectives & priorities

2. Conservation measures and their effectiveness

3. Monitoring and evaluation

4. Addressing threats and pressures to Alpine habitats and species

Setting conservation status objectives & priorities

Three subject areas were discussed: 1) Interpretation of habitats, 2) Identification of appropriate

indicators and targets, and 3) Restoration priorities. Regarding possible inconsistencies in the

interpretation of Annex 1 habitats, a reworking of the Annex I habitat definitions was proposed as a

solution. Nevertheless, the possibility to continue to work with the current approach, allowing

Member States to use a nationally appropriate interpretation of the existing Annex I habitat definitions

was recognized. It was also proposed to have a platform where MS can post their Annex I definitions

to allow comparison with other MS and discussion plus possible revision. It was noted however, that

the designation of the Natura 2000 sites was underpinned by the presence of Annex I habitat types

according to the existing definitions and Annex II species and that any major revisions of the definitions

(assuming that alternative definitions could be agreed) could have implications for the legal status of

the current Natura 2000 series.

Most member states have a national overview of the conservation status of the Annex I habitats in

their country, but seemed to lack appropriate indicators and targets at the site level. It was generally

agreed that the national FRV’s could partially inform this target-setting process, i.e. by looking at how

much of the extent of Annex I habitat on each site contributes to the national resource. The second

part of the condition indicator, the habitat quality definitions, are essentially site-specific and are less

readily available. These definitions can be derived either from existing relevé data or from site visits

designed specifically to capture the information.

Regarding the identification of restoration priorities, the LHF approach is considered beneficial from a

political point of view, but there were some reservations with regards to the degree of application. It

is important to ensure that by prioritizing one particular LHF habitat, other more pressing restoration

needs are not discriminated. The general recommendation was that a balanced approach that

incorporates the Low Hanging Fruits approach was probably best.

Conservation measures and their effectiveness

In this group, six issues related to conservation measures and their effectiveness were discussed.


3

1. Funding: a lack of funding to support the implementation of conservation measures;

resources available not being used; misuse of available funds; lack of information on funding

opportunities. Priority should be given to improve the access to available resources both for

managing authorities and stakeholders. Amongst others, recommendations of the group

were to further investigate and promote the use of market based solutions, encouraging the

involvement of private sector and to provide incentives, rather than compensations.

2. Regulations and governance: the challenges produced by regulations in terms of restrictions,

administrative burdens, lack of clarity and integration in policies and planning cannot be

ignored. The organization of thematic workshops on regulation integration and the

establishment of a database, collecting conservation measures from Natura 2000

management were proposed to overcome this problem.

3. Cooperation: There is a clear need to improve and strengthen cooperation, the group

recommended ensuring more transparency and better communication at the local level,

facilitating the access to information and the exchange of good practices, the creation of

advisory service, information points and the organisation of thematic workshops.

4. Communication: the need to improve the quality of communication concerning Natura 2000

management was clearly highlighted. It was proposed to organise Natura 2000 exhibitions,

trade shows and contests, outdoor activities for schools and to integrate Natura 2000 in

school programs and University courses. Those would contribute to raise the awareness of

civil society and motivate stakeholders. Local media should be actively involved and

information about Natura 2000 should reach local communities with the organisation of local

workshops, site visits and other events. All those should contribute to build a more

coordinated communication network that would integrate the European and local level.

5. Participatory approach: the lack of stakeholders’ involvement and integration in planning

and management is clearly an obstacle towards more effective management. Participation of

stakeholders is strongly dependent on good information and communication. It is crucial to

have a good understanding of how nature conservation is perceived by local communities

(challenges and opportunities). Information should be made more accessible at local level,

with more transparent messages and clarity on conservation objectives and measures

foreseen and in place.

6. Knowledge and capacity: the group analysed in particular the need to improve knowledge

and capacity to deliver effective results, considering also the need to better value traditional

knowledge.

Monitoring and evaluation

Unifying definitions and interpretation of habitats is a basic challenge as they are not always

comparable in the different countries. There are insufficient funds available to monitor everything and

the question of ‘why’ we should monitor is therefore very important. The key is how to determine a

clear goal – you know what you want, but how often will you have this information – that is very

complicated and complex. How to know which species to select, e.g. which flower for the designated

butterfly, so experiments are needed here, but that is taking a long time. Choosing the right monitoring

is also difficult, and Member States also have to deliver for article 17 whilst keeping in mind their

national goals. Evaluating habitat structures rather than species is sometimes necessary, as species

cannot always be compared. Integration of the information we already have is very important as well,

as there is a lot of monitoring data already available and for the climate change challenge it is very

important to integrate existing knowledge as well. Collaboration is very important for that. A lot of


4

monitoring is based on voluntary systems. There are some projects realized by citizens, for example

based on pictures that people take with their phone. A problem with the monitoring data is that they

are often protected.

The Low Hanging Fruit methodology was also discussed in this group, the quality of data can influence

the determination of LHF. The devil is in the detail, for example it would be easier for river banks, but

much more complicated for wetlands, it really depends on the type of the habitat.

New techniques in monitoring are: DNA (and genetic techniques); eDNA (in this method a sample from

the environment, such as from the soil, water or air, is used to measure the abundance of a certain

organism, as organisms leave DNA behind in the habitat that they use); remote sensing (even if already

known in the 70ties); drones; cameras; radar and LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). The DNA

method is very effective as you can sample a lot and it is very cost-effective as you can process after

thousands of species in short time, the only disadvantage is that the method is expensive (although it

is becoming cheaper), despite being cost-effective.

Remote sensing can be very a promising tool as well, especially in habitats with a long snow cover. The

encouraging part is that you can generalize what was put in samples; and you can use the data in the

best appropriate way. It is a very good tool at the landscape level, but on the site level you need more

precise pictures will also be needed.

A possible topic for a future event in the field of monitoring and evaluation could be “New

techniques for the monitoring”, including biostatistics and modelling as a huge evolution is expected

here.

Addressing threats and pressures to Alpine habitats and species

Some specific threats and pressures were discussed into more depth:

1. Land abandonment for meadow habitats

- A reason for this can be a less developed economy in meadow-based areas, with a

related low income. Also demography in meadows can be a reason. The EC, Member

States and regions should all help here, via subsidies, programs to promote these

regions, media and the implementation of MAES into planning.

- Natural succession (from meadows into forests for example) is a threat to the meadows

too. This can be prevented by proper planning of the management and the proportion of

forests and grassland. Investments into machines and measures in the field will help to

maintain the meadows. Flexible management is required.

- Large carnivores can be a reason for land abandonment. To overcome this problem,

sharing and using of good practices (for example with shepherds or livestock guarding

dogs) can be used.

2. Inconsistencies in policies

- Policies on green energy (energy from wood and other biomass, water, etc.) can

sometimes be conflicting or inconsistent. It is important that the real results of such

energy sources are valued, for often they contribute too little to the increase of energy

related to their costs and the ecological damage they are causing. Mitigation measures,

in the sense that a minimum water flow is ensured for example, regulations via law,

(consistent) policies, subsidy systems and sharing of good practices and coordination of

approaches will help solving this problem. Joint implementation of directives like the

Habitats and Birds directive together with the flood protection directive will help

preventing inconsistencies.


5

- There can also be inconsistencies in policies related to risks for people and settlements,

in the Alpine region risks can be caused by avalanches, floods and landslides. Also for this

problem, joint implementation of legislation is a solution.

3. Climate Change

- Climate change is a major threat for the Alpine region. Habitats shift and their species

composition is changing. It is important to have a plan ready for the habitats, and to

measure the changes so mitigation or adaptation can take place.

Another remarkable part of the Seminar was the field visit, where all Seminar participants visited a

forest and a grassland habitat. Issues and ideas for the management of these areas were discussed

with the group. It boosted the discussions about Natura 2000 management. The Knowledge Market at

the end of day 2 was another opportunity to discuss projects presented by the seminar participants.

During the Knowledge Market, a discussion about approaches to large carnivores management took

place as well.

The discussions at the Seminar led to a range of ideas for concrete cooperation and the development

of initiatives to improve the management of Natura 2000 including a number of specific follow-up

events (see chapter 3).


6

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 2

Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 6

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 7

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Context of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar ............................................................... 8

1.2 The Alpine Seminar Input Document ...................................................................................... 8

2 Results of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar ........................................................................ 9

2.1 The opening session ................................................................................................................ 9

2.2 The site visits ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Day 2 of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar ................................................................ 10

2.4 The thematic working groups ................................................................................................ 13

2.4.1 Setting conservation status objectives & priorities ............................................................... 13

2.4.2 Conservation measures and their effectiveness ................................................................... 18

2.4.3 Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................................... 21

2.4.4 Addressing threats and pressures to Alpine habitats and species ........................................ 24

3 Alpine Roadmap ............................................................................................................................ 26

4. Closing plenary session .............................................................................................................. 28

Annex I: Habitats selected in the Alpine Biogeographical Process ....................................................... 29

Annex II Existing knowledge, projects, events ................................................................................... 32

Annex III List of participants of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar ........................................... 36

Annex IV Projects presented at the Knowledge Market ................................................................... 42


7

List of abbreviations

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy

EC: European Commission

FCS: Favourable conservation status

FRV: Favourable reverence value

LHF: Low hanging fruit

MS: Member State

WFD: Water Framework Directive


8

1 Introduction This document presents the main outcomes from the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar held in

Padova, Italy, from 21 to 23 June 2017. The Seminar brought together a wide range of Natura 2000

practitioners and expert stakeholders from the Alpine region. As part of the Natura 2000

Biogeographical Process, the Seminar served the purpose of discussing issues of common concern and

interest in relation to the conservation and management of Natura 2000 habitats selected for priority

consideration and habitats identified as “low hanging fruit”. The Seminar was organised by ECNC in

close cooperation with the European Commission and the generous hosts, the University of Padova in

Italy. The seminar was attended by 118 delegates.

1.1 Context of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar The Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process was launched by the European Commission in 2011 to assist

Member States in managing Natura 2000 as a coherent ecological network. The Process provides

practical means to exchange the information, experience and knowledge that are required to identify

and define common solutions and develop cooperative actions, which can be delivered to ensure

progress towards the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy targets, in particular to Targets 1 & 2.

As the responsibility for the implementation of Natura 2000 and ensuring progress towards the EU’s

Biodiversity Strategy targets lies with Member States, they are key actors in the Natura 2000

Biogeographical Process. The Process also provides an opportunity to mobilise expert networks and

inputs from other key stakeholders, including NGOs. This is important in order to be in direct contact

with experience of Natura 2000 practitioners, expert stakeholders and Member States’

representatives with specific responsibilities for implementation of Natura 2000. This underlines the

strategic and operational importance of the Process, the integrated inputs required from diverse actors

and the opportunities available to develop concrete collaborative actions for future implementation.

1.2 The Alpine Seminar Input Document The Alpine Seminar Input document was produced to support the discussions during the Second Alpine

Natura 2000 Seminar in Italy. It includes feedback on the four thematic clusters and five habitat groups,

describing amongst others:

Most pressing common issues and specific challenges

Opportunities for cooperation

Examples of good practices and recourses

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/alpine_seminar_second/input_document_2nd%20alp%20seminar_2017_en.pdf


9

2 Results of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar

2.1 The opening session

The Seminar was officially opened by Tommaso Sitzia, representing the University of Padova, the host

of the Seminar. Thereafter, other introductory statements and welcome words were given.

Laura Pettiti from the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea started by

expressing the seminars importance for Natura 2000 implementation. She pointed towards current

milestones as the outcomes of the Fitness Check and the Report of the European Court of Auditors

which offer realistic yet at times uncomforting findings. Furthermore, it was urged to strive for greater

integration within the Natura 2000 framework, regarding the various expertise’s, EU policy and EU

financial instruments involved and the ways in which these aims were developed in Italy.

In Italy, a cross-sectoral working group under the auspices of the Ministry representatives, the Regions

and ISPRA identified future scientific research priorities and set up a national monitoring system for

Natura 2000. However, more needs to be done to make Natura 2000 sites competitive in respect to

areas outside the network for farmers sustainable involvement. Furthermore, common grounds and

opportunities pertaining to the Rural Development Programmes and EU financial framework need to

be sought. As Mrs Pettiti argued, we must learn to utilize the Prioritized Action Framework and LIFE

programmes better and strive for greater involvement of land owners and other stakeholders. The LIFE

project of FARENAIT was a good step in this direction yet additional steps are needed.

Integrated planning was deemed especially critical for successful Natura 2000 implementation,

particularly in the Italian setting due to the great number of institutions involved. To avoid overlap of

plans and regulations a single management tool for national protected areas and their Natura 2000

sites was developed. Equally important is the establishment of clear objectives, common concepts,

measurable targets, realistic indicators. Project Gestire 2020 has represented a very interesting

experience for process governance, territorial bodies involvement– first of all the regional protected

areas – and the dissemination of information about Natura 2000 to the wider public. Overall, for nature

conservation dialogue remains one of the most important tools, which makes this meeting so fruitful.

Micheal O’Briain from the European Commission stressed the importance of the Seminar. He thanked

the University of Padova for hosting the seminar. It is the first time that a Natura 2000 Seminar is being

hosted by an academic party. This is especially important also because practice needs science, and

science also needs the practice (added by Tommaso Sitzia from the University of Padova).The future of

the implementation of the Natura 2000 network is bright, the birds and habitats directives are still fit

for purpose, as was concluded from the fitness check. Implementation of the directives should be

improved however, especially with regards to the socio-economic context. It should be practical and

operational, therefore an Action Plan has been developed including 15 priority areas of action. Also,

there is an extra 60 million euros available for the LIFE programme. Micheal O’Briain finally stressed

that together we are stronger and wished that the seminar will create many new opportunities.

François Kremer from the European Commission presented the context of the seminar, zooming into

the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020, the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process and the EU Action Plan

for nature, people and the economy (2017-2019). He also thanked everyone for being present. It is

important to continue with cooperation and networking, also after the seminar and with people that

are not present. Action 6 from the Action Plan is to “Bring together public authorities and stakeholders


10

from different Member States at the biogeographical region level to address common challenges,

including on cross-border issues”. The Committee of the Regions of the EU is also a key partner in

implementing the action plan. François Kremer finally stressed the importance of developing and

adopting roadmaps for cooperative action under the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process.

Neil McIntosh presented the schedule of the seminar and stated that the Process is meant to build a

network of people working together on the management of the Natura 2000 network.

2.2 The site visits

Tommaso Sitzia provided an introduction to the site visits. The site visits, to a forest and a grassland

site, will take place in Pian Cansiglio, part of the IT3230077 Natura 2000 site and located in the north-

eastern Italian pre-Alps. He went way back into the history of the management of the area, from during

the Venice Republic and the careless management of the forest after its fall in 1797. In 1871, the Italian

government declared it ‘Inalienable State Property’. The area consists mainly of sediments of a marine

origin. In the area there is karst formation (dissolving of rocks of a calcareous nature by rain water).

The forest site is a mature beech forest, that has a long history of management because the beeches

were used for the production of oars during earlier times. Now, the beech forest is managed by a

schedule of shelter wood silvicultural interventions. The deer density in the area is high, posing a threat

to seedlings and saplings, in particular of silver fir, and the forest regeneration is threatened.

The grassland site is a mosaic of grasslands and pond habitat types. It is located close to a conifer forest

and managed by a dairy farm. Mowing and grazing by cattle are used to manage in grasslands. The

management is also linked to the requirements of the Nitrate Directive, which prohibits fertilization.

Participants discussed the management plan and management measures of this grassland, because

the contracts for the dairy farms need to be renewed in a few years, there is a good possibility to apply

changes to the current management in the area.

Field visits in a grassland (left) and forest (right) habitat.

2.3 Day 2 of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar

The second day of the seminar started with welcoming words from Raffaele Cavalli, the director of the

department Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF) at the University of Padova.

Following these warm words, several presentations were given by the participants.

Mora Aronsson (European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Sweden) presented the Low Hanging

Fruit approach (LHF). The LHF habitats are an addition to the priority habitats, where the habitats in

the worst condition are prioritized. There is however also a need to demonstrate that targets can and


11

are being reached, this notably with a view to keep mobilizing funds. Therefore also improvements in

conservation status and progress needs to be made. Therefore the LHF methodology was developed,

to identify habitats that can more easily improve on their conservation status.

Micheal O’Briain also stressed that it is indeed really important to make progress towards reaching our

biodiversity targets. Angelika Rubin (European Commission) explained that a questionnaire about

success stories in (regions of) Member States is being developed by the Institute for European

Environmental Policy.

Presentations at day 2 of the seminar, in the beautiful Villa Bolasco, Castelfranco Veneto.

Laura Causella from the Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research,

presented the Italian handbook for habitat monitoring under the Habitats Directive. It serves as

clarification guide to people that need to report. The handbook is based on the outcomes of the first

Alpine Seminar and focusses at the site level. Critical issues that are examined are the selection of

appropriate methods for the parameters to be used in the report (Area & Structure and Function); the

concept of "typical species" and standard methodological and sampling procedures for each habitat

type (vegetation, substrate and water quality, et cetera). The handbook ensures that there is an

understandable standardized method available for the people carrying out the assessments.

Werner Rehklau (Bavarian Environment Agency, Germany) presented a case-study about integrating

the Water Framework Directive with the Birds & Habitats Directives in Bavaria. Goals of Natura 2000

are planned and integrated into local management plans. Therefore, working together with the forest

administration is very important. The project was divided into a theoretical, scientific, strategic and

practical approach. The ‘great take-off’ was a LIFE project. There will also be a workshop on the issue

in Hungary in early November or late October, and in Austria about Alpine river habitat types, also in

late autumn.

Matthias Dolek (Butterfly Conservation Europe, Germany) wants to bring invertebrate conservation

more into the process, the topic is actually also a follow-up from the Graz seminar. The conservation

feature needed for butterflies are neither a grassland, nor a forest but a combination of grass with

some trees. Small structural units are important for butterflies, like the existence of stones. On the

other hand small intensifications can have huge impacts on the butterflies, so it is important to avoid

these. In his presentation Matthias Dolek provided several recommendations for conservation

management with benefit for invertebrates.


12

Marie Kaerlein (Coordinator International Affairs Landcare Germany (DVL) explained how Landcare

Associations (LCAs) can serve as a model to implement Natura 2000. Landcare Associations are non-

profit and independent units working on a district level. The board of such an organization is comprised

of equal numbers of nature conservationists, farmers and local politicians. On request they provide

advice to municipal administrations, farmers and other private landowners. A Landcare association

works together with local stakeholders and organisations. The goals of LCAs are to preserve our

cultural landscape and natural landscapes, to encourage landscape management with farmers and

offer them a reliable additional income from Landcare measures, and to support rural development

and regional products. LCAs act as advisers and mediators, plan and implement measures and open up

financial resources and coordinate paperwork for that. One poor element of LCAs is that the contact

point in the region needs to have that function for a long time to ensure a trusted, long lasting network.

As a result from the 1st Alpine Seminar in Graz, a similar Landcare Association is set up in Romania.

Clive Hurford (Natural Resources Wales) presented the outcomes of the Eurosite Natura 2000

monitoring workshop in Litomerice, April 2017. Developed condition indicators ensure that

conservation management can actually be monitored. Condition indicators are important because

they allow us to develop efficient and reliable monitoring methods that will directly inform site

management. Regarding the decision making process, there are several questions raised like whether

or not a habitat can still realistically achieve FCS if it no longer supports the animal that should be

present. The most popular topics for future workshops are (1) the roles of remote sensing and related

new technologies in Natura 2000 monitoring, (2) dealing with habitat mosaics, (3) statistical

approaches to trends detection, (4) monitoring methods, quality assurance/validation and (5)

harmonising conservation targets across different scales i.e. Biogeographical zone, Member State,

Regional and Natura 2000 sites.

All the presentations can be found on the Natura 2000 Platform.



13

2.4 The thematic working groups

A large part of the second day of the seminar included the thematic working groups. In the following

table, the group with their chairs and facilitators are presented:

Group Chair Seminar support by the contractor

Lead Seminar Coordinator: Neil McIntosh (ECNC)

Setting conservation status objectives & priorities

Clive Hurford (Natural Resources Wales)

Monika Kotulak (CEEweb for Biodiversity)

Conservation measures and their effectiveness

Thomas Campagnaro (University of Padova)

Federico Minozzi (EUROPARC)

Monitoring and evaluation Mora Aronsson (SLU/ETC-BD) Emmanuelle Mikosz (ELO)

Addressing threats and pressures to Alpine habitats and species

Jana Durkošová (Slovak Ministry of the Environment)

Jinthe Roelofs (ECNC)

All thematic working groups started with an introduction of the group participants, chair and

facilitator. In this way the group participants could outline their expertise and express their

expectations and interest in the group they joined.

2.4.1 Setting conservation status objectives & priorities

The three subject areas discussed by this group were: 1) Interpretation of habitats, 2) Identification

of appropriate indicators and targets, and 3) Restoration priorities. Existing knowledge, projects and

events from this group are included in Annex II

Session 1 - What are the management challenges associated with the subject areas

This session opened with a presentation on ‘Setting site-specific conservation objectives for Natura

2000 in Ireland’ by Rebecca Jeffrey of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Ireland. The presentation

gave an overview of the Natura 2000 network in Ireland and the history of preparing conservation

objectives for habitats (using the Active raised bog habitat as an example). A judgement by the

European Court of Justice to sue Ireland for failing an assessment of the impact on Natura 2000 sites

gave rise to the current approach. The conservation objectives for each site focus on the ecological

requirements of the respective Annex I habitats and Annex II species present, and they serve as a tool

for Appropriate Assessment. The presentation set the scene for some of the discussions that followed.

The participants divided into four sub-groups to discuss challenges that they face, specifically relating

to the main topics of the working group. The main challenges identified by the sub-groups were:

The interpretation of Annex I habitat definitions, and a perceived need to define condition

indicators for monitoring that could ensure consistency at both the national and cross-border

levels;

The problems associated with potentially conflicting conservation objectives for habitats and

species at the site level;

How to prioritize objectives on the site level;

How to identify/select indicators for monitoring;

How to choose appropriate management measures;

How to manage dynamic habitats;

How to set conservation objectives for habitats in transition;

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/second-alpine-natura-2000-seminar/13.setting_site-specific_conservation_objectives_natura2000_ireland_rebecca_jeffrey.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/second-alpine-natura-2000-seminar/13.setting_site-specific_conservation_objectives_natura2000_ireland_rebecca_jeffrey.pdf


14

How to identify the priorities for restoration of habitats and species.

Session 2 - Identifying solutions and the scope for joint working

During this session, the same sub-groups reconvened to discuss possible solutions to the challenges

raised in Session 1 and to identify opportunities for joint-working. A brief summary follows on the key

issues discussed for each of the three discussed subject areas.

Interpretation of habitats

Several delegates expressed concern over inconsistent interpretation of the Annex I habitats and the

implications for reporting. The group presented a number of possible solutions, these included:

A complete reworking of the Annex I habitat definitions to provide a clear and unambiguous

definition of each Annex I habitat, developed and approved by a panel of specialists drawn

from a range of Member States;

Continuing with the current approach, which assumes a geographic continuum of Annex I

habitat types across Europe, where the cover of the dominant species and range of

associated/typical species will vary according to location. This approach allows each

Member States to use a nationally appropriate interpretation of the existing Annex I habitat

definitions;

The provision of a platform where the Member States can post their Annex I habitat

definitions to allow comparison with those from other Member states: this could provide a

forum for discussion and possible revision.

It was noted that the designation of the Natura 2000 sites was underpinned by the presence of Annex

I habitat types according to the existing definitions of these habitat types and of Annex II species and

that any major revisions (assuming that alternative definitions could be agreed) could have

implications for the legal status of the current Natura 2000 series.

Identification of appropriate indicators and targets

Most, if not all, of the Member States represented in the group had a national overview of the

conservation status of the Annex I habitats in their country. However, it seemed that no country had

made the transition to developing targets and identifying indicators at the site level – where

restoration measures are applied.

It was generally agreed that the national Favourable Reference Values (FRVs) for the habitat could

partially inform the target-setting process, i.e. by looking at how the extent of Annex I habitat on each

site contributes to the national resource. The second part of the condition indicator, the habitat quality

definitions, are essentially site-specific and are less readily available. These definitions can be derived

either from existing relevé data or from site visits designed specifically to capture the information.

The Chair presented one approach for deriving appropriate habitat quality indicators from existing

relevé data. To do this, we need to have data collected from different habitat stages on the site, i.e.

from different stages of habitat development or from habitat patches perceived to be at different

levels of impact by what we understand to be the key pressures and threats. With this information,

by aligning the data sets from different habitat states side by side, we can start to identify site-specific

assemblages of co-occurring indicator species (see Table 1).


15

Species name Quadrat no

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Saxifraga tridactylites + + +

Galium verum + + + + + + + +

Sedum acre + + + + + + + +

Thymus polytrichus + + + + + + +

Cerastium sp. + + + + + + +

Euphorbia portlandica + + + + +

Viola kitaibeliana + + + + + +

Aphanes arvensis + + +

Plantago coronopus +

Leontodon taraxacoides + + +

Leontodon autumnalis + +

Erodium cicutarium + + + +

Verónica arvensis + +

Erophila verna + + + + +

Mibora mimima + +

Geranium molle + + + + +

Sagina procumbens +

Phleum arenarium +

Luzula campestris + + + +

Trifolium dubium + +

Vicia sativa + +

Hypochaeris radicata +

Ranunculus bulbosus + + +

Lotus corniculatus + + +

Centaurium erythraea + +

Vicia lathyroides +

Species total 15 15 18 18 18 14 15 16

Bare sand 55 35 0 0 1 0 0 0

Grass cover 3 35 30 35 90 90 70 80

Moss cover 30 30 20 65 5 3 5 15

Vegetation height 2.6 2.5 4.0 3.5 4 4 5.5 6

Table 1. This shows the data from a series of relevés collected at a dune system in Jersey. Relevés 1-

4 were collected from open, successionally-young stands of dune grassland, and relevés 5-8 collected

from increasingly closed stands of dune grassland. The species that occur primarily in relevés 1-4

(highlighted in green) are potential contributors to a positive indicator assemblage. The number of

green highlighted species co-occuring in the columns for relevés 1-4 provides the basis for a positive

indicator assemblage for successionally-young dune grassland. However, the inclusion of these species

should always be further informed by our understanding of the pressures and threats to the habitat

on the on the site and by our understanding of how the selected species would respond to increased

pressures.

Identifying restoration priorities

All of the delegates in the Group could see some potential benefits to applying the ‘Low Hanging Fruits’

approach for prioritising habitats for restoration, though there were some reservations with regards


16

to the degree of application. The political benefits of being able to provide positive feedback and

results are clear, but it is important to ensure that by prioritising one particular habitat type we do not

discriminate against possibly more pressing restoration needs of other habitat types. For example,

there was a view that we also need to secure a) the management of sites that are currently hosting

examples of habitats currently in a ‘favourable’ state’ and b) the habitats that have an unfavourable

conservation status and that are more difficult to restore. The fact that such habitats are difficult to

restore across the resource makes it a priority to secure the best examples of them, and particularly

those examples that still support the ‘typical species’ that should be associated with them. The general

recommendation was a balanced approach that incorporates the Low Hanging Fruits approach.

There was also recognition that, even if we solely apply the Low Hanging Fruits approach, we would

not have the resources available to restore all examples of the habitat, therefore we would still need

some form of prioritisation. Against this background, the Chair presented Table 2 as an example of a

scoring system that could be adapted for identifying which sites support the priority examples of a

habitat for both maintenance and restoration management.


17

Habitat conservation value assessment

Site: Kenfig NNR

Habitat: Humid dune slacks

Habitat designation Value Site

Score

Dependent species

designation

Value Site

Score

International priority

habitat and special UK

responsibility

10 0 International priority species

and special UK

responsibility

10 0

International priority

habitat

9 0 International priority species 9 0

Annex I habitat and special

UK responsibility

8 0 Annex II species and special

UK responsibility

8 16

Annex I habitat 6 6 Annex II species 6 0

SSSI habitat 3 0 SSSI species 3 0

Area of habitat Population size

> 50% of national resource 10 0 > 50% of national resource 10 10

26-50% of national

resource

8 8 26-50% of national resource 8 0

11-25% of national

resource

6 0 11-25% of national resource 6 0

6-10% of national resource 4 0 6-10% of national resource 4 0

1-5% of national resource 3 0 1-5% of national resource 3 0

<1% of national resource 1 0 <1% of national resource 1 1

Any of above - but no threat 0 0

Habitat total 14 Dependent species total 27

Overall score = 41

Table 2. This table shows a scoring system that could be adapted/adopted for identifying the sites

that hold the priority habitats for maintenance or restoration management in each country.

Table 2 takes into account:

The level of designation associated with the habitat type;

The degree to which the area of habitat on each site contributes to the national resource;

How many dependent Annex II species are associated with the habitat on each site;

What percentage of the national resource is present for each of the Annex II species;

How many dependent ‘nationally important’ species are associated with the habitat on each

site, and

What percentage of the national resource is present for each nationally important species.

Session 4 - Recommended future actions

The final session of the day focussed on the actions that the Group would like to recommend going

forward. These actions are listed below:

To make better use of the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process by making it more attractive

to participants, e.g. by translating national documents on the subject beforehand and discuss

it, compare and try to unify during the meeting (e.g. definition of habitats, management

guidelines).


18

To provide an online platform for the collation of habitat definitions from all Member States

and where experts would be able to compare and contrast them. Task to be undertaken by an

external contractor?

To establish a working group of experts to discuss and resolve issues associated with habitat

interpretation;

To establish a working group to provide guidance on the development of conservation

objectives and condition indicators, ideally using the Natura 2000 Communication Platform to

collate and share examples of best practice from across the Member States;

To provide an online platform for collating and sharing case studies that illustrate the process

from beginning to end on Natura 2000 sites, i.e. the process of developing Conservation

Objectives and site-specific Condition Indicators, the development and the application of the

monitoring project and the associated management response;

To prepare an application for a project on defining Conservation Objectives and Condition

indicators

To develop a process for establishing condition indicators that could be adopted by all

Member States, perhaps incorporating the guidance currently being developed as an action

from the Eurosite Natura 2000 monitoring workshop.

To organize a workshop for monitoring species and habitats (potentially General Directorate

of National Conservation, Poland)

To prepare a proposal for INTERREG project between several MSs on a few sites for

implementing condition indicators, covering the full circle of implementation, from planning,

performance, evaluation and adaptation.

To organize follow-up events e.g. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) will organize a workshop

for discussing forest habitat types.

2.4.2 Conservation measures and their effectiveness

Workshop structure:

37 Participants, representing public authorities, NGOs, EC, individual experts, landowners, farmers

and managers attended the thematic working group.

After an introduction, Andy Bleasdale – National Parks and Wildlife Service of Ireland presented the

case of the Burren, in Ireland, where, using a result based approach and resources of the RDP, an

innovative cooperation process with farmers was established, resulting in a more integrated and

effective management of Natura 2000 sites.

Taking inspiration from the presentation the group identified main issues that are currently limiting

the effectiveness of Natura 2000 conservation measures in the alpine region. Six thematic sub-groups

have then been working to identify possible solutions to the various issues, taking into account the

background documents provided. Their conclusions and recommendations were shared in a final

session.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/second-alpine-natura-2000-seminar/12.irish_perspective_results-based_approaches_for_biodiversity_andy_bleasdale.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/second-alpine-natura-2000-seminar/12.irish_perspective_results-based_approaches_for_biodiversity_andy_bleasdale.pdf


19

The group identified the following main issues:

1. Funding: lack of funding to support the implementation of conservation measures; resources

available not being used; misuse of available funds; lack of information on funding

opportunities. Priority should be given to improve the access to available resources both for

managing authorities and stakeholders.

In particular it was recommended to:

- Further investigate and promote the use of market based solutions, encouraging the

involvement of private sector;

- Provide incentives, rather than compensations, based on results (as successfully

implemented in the model of the Burren - Ireland);

- Optimize and integrate current funding: ensure that national/regional authorities have in

place and update their Prioritised Action Framework (PAF);

- Use creative solutions to co-finance projects: such as crowd-funding to raise awareness

and build ownership of local communities. A pilot model is the integration of crowd

funding and RDP (cooperation measure) funding to set the basis for a LIFE project

proposal for the Brenta River (Veneto, Italy).

2. Regulations and governance: the challenges produced by the regulations in terms of

restrictions and the administrative burden cannot be ignored. Those, together with the lack of

clarity and lack of integration of policies and planning, are inevitably threatening the effective

management of sites. The improvement of the governance system should be considered as

well. In this perspective the role, expertise and governance models of protected areas,

established at national and regional level, should be valued and further considered for Natura

2000 integrated planning and management.

The following initiatives were proposed:

- The organisation of a thematic workshop on the integration of the Water Framework

Directive and the Habitats Directive.

- Progress in the integration of legislation and planning to improve the effectiveness of

conservation measures (as for example the integration of Natura 2000 plan features

within Forest plans in the Veneto Region);

- Establish a database, collecting conservation measures from Natura 2000 management

plans.

3. Cooperation: There is a clear need to improve and strengthen cooperation, in particular at

local level, among managers, stakeholders and decision makers. This is considered crucial

also to build mutual trust.

The group recommended ensuring more transparency at local level, facilitating the access to

information and improving the communication at local level. If responsibilities have to be shared with

stakeholders, the information on opportunities and restrictions, on site priorities and conservation

objectives should be made more accessible. The creation of opportunities for capacity building and

platforms for dialogue would be a good method to facilitate progresses: promoting the exchange of


20

good practices, the creation of advisory service, information points and the organisation of thematic

workshops.

In particular it was proposed to:

- Organise thematic workshops to present and share the experience of the Landcare

association;

- Establish local forum involving managers, decision makers and stakeholders;

- Identify at local level Natura 2000 ambassadors.

4. Communication: the need to improve the quality of communication concerning Natura 2000

management was clearly highlighted. It is considered that higher quality and transparent

communication, together with more focused, accessible and targeted messages, would

determine a positive cascade effect on management, facilitating the involvement and

participation of different stakeholders. We need to work towards a more positive perception

of Natura 2000.

It is proposed to organise Natura 2000 exhibitions, trade shows and contests, but also outdoor

activities for schools and to integrate Natura 2000 in school programs and University courses. Those

would contribute to raise the awareness of civil society and motivate stakeholders. Local media should

be actively involved and information about Natura 2000 should reach local communities with the

organisation of local workshops, site visits and other events. All those should contribute to build a

more coordinated communication network that would integrate the European and local level.

In particular it was proposed to:

- Further disseminate the EUROPARC training manual and toolkit for effective

communication on Natura 2000.

- Encourage the use of local media to involve stakeholders;

- Create local information platforms and helpdesks to provide support and guidelines to

stakeholders.

5. Participatory approach: the lack of stakeholders’ involvement and integration in planning

and management is clearly an obstacle towards more effective management. In order to

ensure the development of more participatory approaches at local level, the following ideas

were proposed:

- Participation of stakeholders is strongly dependent on good information and

communication. It is crucial to have a good understanding of how nature conservation is

perceived by local communities (challenges and opportunities). Information should be

made more accessible at local level, with more transparent messages and clarity on

conservation objectives and measures foreseen and in place.

- In order to reward stakeholders and mangers for their contribution to the

implementation of conservation measures, it is proposed to organise Natura 2000

awards also at local and national level.

- With the aim to strengthen cooperation and involve stakeholders in the decision making

process, it is proposed to create local committees or forums, involving local authorities,

managers, scientists and stakeholders. Those forums should maintain their

independence.

http://www.europarc.org/tools-and-training/communication-skills/toolkit/


21

- To capitalise best practices and projects from other areas across Europe.

- Promote the implementation of sustainable tourism strategies and plans to strengthen

the cooperation at local level between public and private sector.

6. Knowledge and capacity: this group analysed in particular the need to improve knowledge

and capacity to deliver effective results, considering also the need to better value traditional

knowledge. The following were considered:

- There are numerous external factors that have an impact on management, which are out

of managers’ control. For this it is important to set realistic conservation objectives, with

good margins of flexibility, and to encourage cross border approaches, between sites,

regions and countries. The experiences of transboundary protected areas should be

valued and considered as a possible model.

- There is the need to improve knowledge and the experience of managers and

stakeholders: create opportunities of learning exchange for local managers and make

data and information more accessible (database, websites, handbooks, etc.). Better

consideration should be given to traditional knowledge, valuing the opportunity of the

European Year of Cultural Heritage – 2018.

- Lack of confidence on available data concerning habitats status, species distribution and

population size. It is considered crucial to regularly update and review data, to simplify

the amendment process of Standard Data Forms SDFs and ensure the involvement of

local experts for their review.

- The lack of expertise of managers and the limited human resources available to work on

the field are an important obstacle to effective management. It is recommended to

promote dedicated University modules, such as the new one on Natura 2000

management by the University of Padova

(http://en.didattica.unipd.it/offerta/2017/AV/AV2091/2017/002LE/1159973).

- Managing authorities and their administrative/governance structures are not always

adequate for the tasks assigned. Proportionate funding and training opportunities should

be provided.

- Guidance for managers is not always sufficient or adequate: the review of some guidance

from the EC – as indicated in the Nature Action Plan - is surely welcomed. Guidance

should become living documents, easy to integrate, adapt and translate.

2.4.3 Monitoring and evaluation

As starting point for the discussion, the excursion of day one of the seminar is used. Basic problems to

solve are the definitions and interpretations of habitats, they are different between the countries.

These problems occur in every habitat group. Ideally, many aspects should be monitored but there are

insufficient funds available for that. The real and most important question therefore is WHY we should

monitor particular aspects. With monitoring, it is important to keep in mind the climate change effects.

An example of a LIFE project dedicated to butterflies is given, where the starting point was to assess

how many species there are, and if they are increasing or decreasing. The main questions always

remains: how long to monitor and how to measure. The key is to determine a clear goal – you have to

know what you want to achieve. But how often will you have this information – how to know which

http://en.didattica.unipd.it/offerta/2017/AV/AV2091/2017/002LE/1159973


22

species to select, for example which flower for the designate butterfly. Experiments are needed here,

but they require a long time frame.

It is important to put all regional standards together and to collect all the existent data stored at

different places and collected by various groups. There is a big dependence on the (changing) funding.

Evaluation of a habitat structure is the solution as you can’t compare specific species. For example in

the WFD, an approximation is used if you can’t compare different ecosystems. Here the WFD is very

clear - you have to evaluate the structure. Specific species are used as indicators on structure

functioning; using of course different species in different areas. The list of typical species is very long

– for different structures and functions; so it is a good idea to choose 3-5 species. Even between

habitats there are differences, so you have to be sure that you are doing the right thing for biodiversity.

For the climate change issue, science is important. Differences in temperatures can be compared, so

future situations can be predicted. There is also the possibility to use genetic methods. Already existent

information should be integrated. The question remains how to do it in an easier way. It is not easy to

share and spread studies, but it should be done more.

The Nordic part of the Alpine region is a very tricky one - Sweden is having the biggest part. Very few

people are living there, mainly indigenous people called Sami. They are the main users in Sweden and

Finland but are having different rights, so there are a lot of specific conflicts concerning the land use.

It is also a very tricky region with a lot of different aspects, different land uses and landscape

management between North and South or East and West. For example, in the case of reindeer as the

important grazer in the North and cattle and sheep in the South.

The LHF methodology

The Chair starts the second part by explaining the LHF methodology. The main reason of the LHF

methodology is to achieve quick improvements of conservation status for a number of habitat types

with relatively les efforts than for more difficult habitats and to be able to show positive achievements,

this mainly for political reasons. In the absence of visible positive results it may become more difficult

to secure sufficient funds for the necessary conservation and restoration measures. The discussion

point was raised that, taking as base the Art. 17 reporting requirements, the quality of the data can

also influence the determination of LHF habitats. A higher score can also simply be obtained by having

a higher proportion of a particular habitat type inside Natura 2000.

A question about the usefulness of using the presented index was raised. If the assessment is done on

the EU coverage it means the result is for both outside and inside Natura 2000, so why using this index.

It would be easier to do it only inside Natura 2000 zones, also for LHF. The Chair explains steps 3 - 5

from the PPT, to better understand what could be really LHF according to the Habitats Directive. He

indicates that as there are a lot of differences between MS reporting the experts thought it would be

useful to have 20 habitats, at the end 30 habitats as LHF (FV). We all have to prove that the Directive

is working. Those tables are not a judgment, and small countries also have to act.

After a question about the ranking was raised, it was explained that the ranking was done ‘manually’

based on Topic centre experts’ judgments. To improve the position in the ranking the country also has


23

to work with its neighbours. More countries participating will change the final picture, and at the end

of the day each MS will have to participate.

Monitoring & reporting – suggested follow-up:

- National catalogues on ongoing projects and monitoring schemes in the region and

country. Such information could be gathered as an awareness raising project – to collect

information. This information should be accessible online and in multiple languages. In

some countries, this already happens and the data is accessible, other countries just

started collecting the data.

- An Interreg project could be of use – for gathering the data, individual schemes and

funds.

Collaboration with private stakeholders (landowners, farmers and other private stakeholders)

In many countries, collaboration with private stakeholders takes place, for example for comparing

methods and testing each other’s protocols, using shared grids for monitoring and using the same ways

to collect data. In some countries monitoring is done via public procurement with collaboration for

special cases like the monitoring of bat caves. In addition a lot of volunteers are helping and

Universities are very engaged. Concerning fishes – there is collaboration with people having fishing

rights.

There are also projects realized by citizens; for example for beetle species in Slovenia there is an

application based on pictures taken by phones. Delegates confirm such applications for butterflies

and birds being existent in Bavaria; for birds in Catalonia and Pays Basque and for invasive species in

fresh water in Sweden. It is no always complicated to manage this data, because dedicated experts

can be appointed to ventilate such data. However, especially when there are many different species

occurring, validating this data is a challenge. It is also important to keep in mind that it is not only

about how to gather data, but also about involving people even if they are not delivering high

information, as the goal here is capacity building.

New techniques in monitoring

The most well-known new techniques in monitoring are: DNA (and genetic techniques); eDNA (in this

method a sample from the environment, such as from the soil, water or air, is used to measure the

abundance of a certain organism, as organisms leave DNA behind in the habitat that they use); remote

sensing (even if already known in the 70ties); drones; cameras; radar and LIDAR (Light Detection and

Ranging). Drones can be used to monitor invasive species. LIDAR is used in forestry, in addition to

radars it will be more important in the future. DNA is used in the Arctic for the monitoring of fungi,

very rarely you have the fruit body, and therefore this method is very promising, also for soil

invertebrates. In the non-Arctic Alpine region DNA is used as well, it gives the possibility to evaluate

the complete fauna in the area and not species by species. Another advantage is that in a single

analyses you can really learn a lot. Of course a complete DNA analyses for animals is not cheap;

genomics is really promising here. The method is becoming cheaper as well.

With drones there are sometimes legal issues regarding their use, they can be forbidden in national

parks and when using them outside the area you have to be sure that there are not disturbing the

animals.


24

Remote sensing can be very a promising tool, especially in areas with long time snow cover habitat.

It might be useful to organize an event about “new techniques in monitoring”, including biostatistics

and modelling as a huge evolution is expected here.

2.4.4 Addressing threats and pressures to Alpine habitats and species

The ‘addressing threats and pressures to Alpine habitats and species’ group consisted of 14 experts

from the Alpine region, together with a European Commission representative. As introductory ‘food

for thought’ the Chair, Jana Durkošová, presented the new EU Action Plan.

The group focussed on a number of specific threats and pressures:

1. Land abandonment and meadow habitats

- A reason for this can be a less developed rural economy and a related low income for the

local population. Also demography can be a reason. Young people have a different

lifestyle than their parents and grandparents, and move out of the area. It is therefore

important that young people are motivated to stay, for example by offering education

and/or economic activities. The countryside should also become more attractive and

more highly valued (MAES, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services,

can help for this). Sharing experience on a national and regional level will help. There are

examples of people going back to the traditional ways of living, for example this happens

in the Arctic Alpine region with the Sami people. The general trend is however that more

land is abandoned.

The EC, Member States and regions should all help here, via subsidies, programs to

promote these regions, media and the implementation of MAES into planning. This

should be done as soon as possible, but especially when regulations are changed or new

regulations adopted. It is important that the focus will be on long-term solutions.

- Natural succession (from meadows into forests for example) is a threat to the meadows

too. This can be prevented by proper planning of the management and the proportion of

forests and grassland. Investments into machines and measures in the field will help to

maintain the meadows. Flexible management is required. Authorities in charge of the

planning and land owners/users or their association (with ecological expertise) should

take care of this. It can be necessary to select representative sites to focus on.

- Large carnivores can be a reason for land abandonment. Especially in the Alpine region, it

is not always easy to prevent damage to livestock, as it is not always possible to place a

wolf-proof fence for example. Using shepherds can be too expensive for some farmers.

To overcome this problem, sharing and using of good practices (for example with

shepherds or livestock guarding dogs) can be used. Subsidies or compensation for

damage help to minimize the effects of a conflict. Education on pros and cons of

different methods and about large carnivores management is important as well. Species

action plans for large carnivores will also help reducing potential conflicts.

There are different groups of stakeholders that can help for this, the EC and Member

states, regional and local authorities like nature and hunting bodies should all take

responsibility. Information should be shared via the EU large carnivore platform. There


25

are examples of success stories related to large carnivore management, like the

Carpathian Convention. Media can have a positive influence on the large carnivore

discussion as well, if they picture it in a positive way. It is important to take large

carnivores into account when revising or adopting measures under the CAP, national

strategies and species plans.

2. Inconsistencies in policies

- Policies on green energy (energy from wood and other biomass, water, etc.) can

sometimes be conflicting or inconsistent with biodiversity conservation. It is important

that the real results of such energy sources are valued, for often they contribute too little

to the increase of energy related to their economic and ecological costs. Mitigation

measures, in the sense that a minimum water flow is ensured for example, regulations

via law, (consistent) policies, subsidy systems and sharing of good practices and

coordination of approaches will help solving this problem. More coherence in

implementing directives like the Habitats and Birds directive and the flood protection

directive will help preventing inconsistencies.

(Cross-border) conventions can be successful in solving problems related to policy

inconsistencies. The Alpine Convention was previously adopted and is now working with

national and regional parks to create a network. Another example is the Carpathian

convention.

- There can also be inconsistencies in policies related to risks for people and settlements,

in the Alpine region risks can be caused by avalanches, floods and landslides. Also for this

problem, joint implementation of legislation is a solution. For example, dwarf pine can be

used to create more stable ecosystems. Proper land use planning and creating risk maps

in very important for this issue. Sharing of experience will help each other forward as

well. It is mostly national, regional and local (environmental) authorities who should

anticipate on inconsistencies related to risk for people. Fora can be used to share risk

maps for example. It is important that the (legal) responsibilities are clarified in this case.

3. Climate Change

- In the Alpine region climate change represents a major threat for many habitats and

species. Habitats shift and their species composition is changing. It is important to have a

plan ready for the habitats, and to measure the changes so that mitigation or adaptation

can take place. Therefore, assistance should be proactive and involve scientists.

Migration corridors and stable habitats should be supported. Some habitats can still be

managed in a way that they stay the same, while for others, shifting to another habitat

might be foreseen.


26

3 Alpine Roadmap A significant range of subjects for future development and concrete collaboration were identified

during the course of the working groups’ discussions:

What? When? Where?

Workshop about better integrating the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Birds & Habitats Directives

October/November 2017

Hungary

Workshop about Alpine river habitat types Late Autumn 2017 Austria

Eurosite Natura 2000 monitoring workshop, hosted by Estación Biológica de Doñana, about ‘intergrating remote sensing and other new technologies into Natura 2000 monitoring’.

April 2019 Sevilla

Establish a working group of experts to discuss and resolve issues associated with habitat interpretation

To provide an online platform for the collation of habitat definitions from all Member States and where experts would be able to compare and contrast them. Task to be undertaken by an external contractor?

Establish a working group to provide guidance on the development of conservation objectives and condition indicators, ideally using the Natura 2000 Communication Platform to collate and share examples of best practice from across the Member States

To organize a workshop on monitoring species and habitats

(potentially General Directorate of National Conservation,

Poland)

To prepare a proposal for INTERREG project between several MSs on a few sites for implementing condition indicators, covering the full circle of implementation, from planning, performance, evaluation and adaptation.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) will organize a workshop for discussing the management of secondary forest habitat types.

19-21 September 2017

Bad Bergzabern, Germany

Establish a database, collecting conservation measures from Natura 2000 management plans.

Organise thematic workshops to present and share the experience of the Landcare association

Establish local forums involving managers, decision makers and stakeholders

Further disseminate the EUROPARC training manual and

toolkit for effective communication on Natura 2000.

Encourage the use of local media to involve stakeholders

Create local information platforms and helpdesks to provide support and guidelines to stakeholders.

An Interreg project about monitoring and reporting – for gathering all the data that individual organisations and countries have, information on available funds could be included in this project as well




27

To organize an event about “new techniques in monitoring”, including biostatistics and modelling as a huge evolution is expected here.

Fight land abandonment via subsidies, programs to promote the regions, media and the implementation of MAES into planning.

Share best-practice information regarding large carnivores on the EU large carnivore forum

Establish cross-border conventions to solve problems related to inconsistencies in policies


28

4. Closing plenary session Blanca Saez-Lacave and João Pedro Silva presented the latest developments under the LIFE

programme. The LIFE programme promotes collaboration between several stakeholders for managing

Natura 2000 sites, habitats and species, it is also a huge repository of practical habitat management

and restoration actions. The calls for the Climate area and for the Nature and Biodiversity area are

open until 7 September 2017 and 14 September 2017 respectively. It is wise to not only think about

the nature and biodiversity area when submitting an application, because there competition for this

area is huge, for example governance and climate can sometimes be a possibility as well. It is also really

important to read the application package into detail before submitting an application.

The outcomes of the four thematic working groups on day 2 were presented and shortly discussed as

well.

Final words of thanks at day 3 of the seminar, at the Department of Geography in Padova.

These presentations were followed by an expression of thanks by the Italian host. Micheal O’Briain

(European Commission) thanked the host and stressed that the Process is also designed to bring people

into contact with each other and encourage them to work together. There is this funding programme

of LIFE so it should be used. We should actually have a sense of pride for the Natura 2000 Network and

its implementation at the local level. It happens because of people.

The organisers thank all delegates for their active participation and valuable contributions during this

second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar. The results of the working group discussions presented during

the closing session provide the basis for developing new and promising follow-up actions. The

European Commission and the contractor supporting the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process play a

coordinating and supporting role for these follow-up actions, but the initiative clearly resides with the

site, local, regional and Member State level actors. The Commission has initiated and supported the

Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process to help the Member States in their duty to implement the Nature

Directives. In addition, there are various types of funds available to carry out projects and activities in

relation to the implementation of the Nature Directives, in particular, under the LIFE Nature

programme and the structural funds. The delegates are encouraged to remain in contact, to include

their colleagues and to take forward the many interesting ideas that had been discussed during the

Seminar.


29

Annex I: Habitats selected in the Alpine Biogeographical Process

Freshwater habitat group

Habitats Directive

code

Habitat name Low Hanging

Fruit

Priority

consideration

habitat

3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

Yes

3150 Natural eutrophic lakes Magnopotamion

Hydrocharition

Yes Yes

3220 Alpine rivers and the herbaceous

vegetation along their banks

Yes

3230 Alpine rivers and their ligneous

vegetation with Myricaria germanica

Yes

3240 Alpine rivers and their ligneous

vegetation with Salix elaeagnos

Yes

3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Yes

3180 Turloughs Yes

Bogs, mires and fens habitat group

Habitats Directive

code


Fruit

Priority

consideration

habitat

7110 Active raised bogs Yes

7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs Yes

7230 Alkaline fens Yes

7220 Petrifying springs with tufa formation

(Cratoneurion)

Yes

Forest habitat group

Habitats Directive

code


Fruit

Priority

consideration

habitat

91D0 Bog woodland Yes

91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and

Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion

incanae, Salicion albae)

Yes

9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Yes


30

9180 Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and

ravines

Yes

9260 Castanea sativa woods Yes Yes

9410 Acidophilous Picea forests Yes Yes

91H0 Pannonian woods with Quercus

pubescens

Yes

91L0 Illyrian oak-hornbeam forests

(Erythronio-Carpinion)

Yes

91M0 Pannonian-Balkanic oak forests Yes

91WO Moesian beech forests Yes

91Z0 Moesian Silver lime woods Yes

9050 Fennoscandian herb-rich forests with

Picea abies

Yes

9110 Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests Yes

9170 Galio-Carpinetum oak hornbeam forests Yes

9270 Hellenic beech forests with Abies borisii-

regis

Yes

9510 Southern Apennine Abies alba Yes

9560 Endemic forests with Juniperus spp. Yes

Grassland habitat group

Habitats Directive

code


Fruit

Priority

consideration

habitat

6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and

scrubland facies on calcareous substrates

(Festuco-Brometalia) ( * important orchid

sites)

Yes

6230 * Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on

siliceous substrates in mountain areas

(and submountain areas, in Continental

Europe)

Yes

6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or

clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion

caeruleae)

Yes


31

6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe

communities of plains and of the

montane to alpine levels

Yes

6510 Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus

pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)

Yes

6520 Mountain hay meadows Yes

62D0 Oro-Moesian acidipjilous grasslands Yes

Heath and scrub habitat group

Habitats Directive

code


Fruit

Priority

consideration

habitat

40A0 Subcontinental peri-Pannonic scrub Yes

4070 Bushes with Pinus mugo and

Rhododendron

Yes

4080 Sub-Arctic Salix spp. Scrub Yes


32

Annex II Existing knowledge, projects, events

This provides a list of references and links to relevant publications and projects associated

with the subject areas discussed by thematic working group “Setting conservation status

objectives & priorities”.

Subject area 1 - Interpretation of habitats

FRANCE:

Bensettiti F., Puissauve R., Lepareur F., Touroult J. et Maciejewski L., 2012. Evaluation de l’état de

conservation des habitats et des espèces d’intérêt communautaire – Guide méthodologique – DHFF

article 17, 2007-2012. Version 1 – Février 2012. Rapport SPN 2012-27, Service du patrimoine naturel,

Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris, 76 p. + annexes

http://spn.mnhn.fr/spn_rapports/archivage_rapports/2012/SPN%202012%20-%2027%20-

%20Guide_methodologique_EVAL_V1_fev-2012.pdf

SPAIN:

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino (2009). Bases ecológicas preliminares para la

conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España..

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-

2000/rn_tip_hab_esp_bases_eco_preliminares.aspx

Invertebrates: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino (2009). Bases ecológicas

preliminares para la conservación de las especies de interés comunitario en España: invertebrados,

promovida por la Dirección General de Calidad y Evaluación Ambiental y Medio Natural

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-

protegidos/introduccion_y_metodologia_invertebrados_tcm7-272491.pdf

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino (2009). Fichas: Bases ecológicas preliminares

para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España - Red Natura 2000 -

Espacios protegidos - Biodiversidad - mapama.es. Mapama.gob.es. Available at:

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-

2000/rn_tip_hab_esp_bases_eco_acceso_fichas.aspx [Accessed 19 Jul. 2017].

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino (2009). Tipos de hábitat de agua dulce.

Available at: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-

2000/rn_fichas_be_agua_dulce.aspx [Accessed 19 Jul. 2017].

POLAND:

Manual on habitat interpretation linked to monitoring of habitats and species:

http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/pl/monitoring/metodyka

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_tip_hab_esp_bases_eco_preliminares.aspx



http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/introduccion_y_metodologia_invertebrados_tcm7-272491.pdf

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/introduccion_y_metodologia_invertebrados_tcm7-272491.pdf


33

BULGARIA:

Bulgarian Executive Environmental Agency’s Guidance for the determination of habitats of the

European significance http://www5.moew.government.bg/wp-

content/uploads/filebase/Nature/Natura%202000/Zakoni_naredbi_guidance/manual_habitats_natu

ra2000_bg2009.pdf

ITALY:

Interpretation of habitats on national level http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/

- Sabatini, F., Burrascano, S., Azzella, M., Barbati, A., De Paulis, S., Di Santo, D., Facioni, L., Giuliarelli,

D., Lombardi, F., Maggi, O., Mattioli, W., Parisi, F., Persiani, A., Ravera, S. and Blasi, C. (2016). One

taxon does not fit all: Herb-layer diversity and stand structural complexity are weak predictors of

biodiversity in Fagus sylvatica forests. Ecological Indicators, 69, pp.126-137.

Tomasi M., Odasso M., Lasen C., Mulser J., Gamper U. & Kußtatscher K.: Metodologia per

l’identificazione delle cenosi prative riconducibili agli habitat Natura 2000 “Praterie magre da fieno a

bassa altitudine” (6510) e “Praterie montane da fieno” (6520) in Alto Adige – Südtirol. Gredleriana

16/2016, pp. 35-62. Only in italian available.

http://www.naturmuseum.it/en/publ_details_en.asp?PUBL_ID=324609

FINLAND:

Natura 2000-luontotyyppien inventointiohje. SYKE & Metsähallitus. 28.1.2016. (Inventory of Natura

2000 habitats, in finnish) http://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7BE586E9B2-C83F-4898-

808B-1AB86E2A4901%7D/117293

AUSTRIA:

Ellmauer, T. (Hrsg.) (2005): Entwicklung von Kriterien, Indikatoren und Schwellenwerten zur

Beurteilung des Erhaltungszustandes der Natura 2000-Schutzgüter. Band 3: Lebensraumtypen des

Anhangs I der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie. Im Auftrag der neun österreichischen Bundesländer,

des Bundesministerium f. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und der

Umweltbundesamt GmbH, 616 pp.

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/naturschutz/Berichte_GEZ/Band_3

_FFH-Lebensraumtypen.pdf

SLOVENIA:

Leskovar, I., J. Dobravec (eds.), 2004: Habitatni tipi Slovenije HTS 2004, Republika Slovenija, Ministrstvo

za okolje, prostor in energijo - Agencija Republike Slovenije za okolje, 2004.

https://www.google.si/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi

4i4zg0bXVAhWmB8AKHebGD9gQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arso.gov.si%2Fnarava%2Fporo

%25C4%258Dila%2520in%2520publikacije%2FHabitatniTipiSlovenije2004.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFb5B7wV-

3I5HAmrr0HrrKfRacXPw

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA:

Milanović, Đ., J. Brujić, S. Đug, E. Muratović, L. Lukić Bilela, 2015: Vodič kroz tipove staništa Bih. Prospect

C&S s.a.. Rue du Prince Royal 83, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.

http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%202000%20-%20Interpretation%20Manual%20LL.pdf

http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/#search/tomaso/_blank

http://www.naturmuseum.it/en/publ_details_en.asp?PUBL_ID=324609

http://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7BE586E9B2-C83F-4898-808B-1AB86E2A4901%7D/117293

http://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7BE586E9B2-C83F-4898-808B-1AB86E2A4901%7D/117293

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/naturschutz/Berichte_GEZ/Band_3_FFH-Lebensraumtypen.pdf

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/naturschutz/Berichte_GEZ/Band_3_FFH-Lebensraumtypen.pdf

https://www.google.si/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4i4zg0bXVAhWmB8AKHebGD9gQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arso.gov.si%2Fnarava%2Fporo%25C4%258Dila%2520in%2520publikacije%2FHabitatniTipiSlovenije2004.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFb5B7wV-3I5HAmrr0HrrKfRacXPw




https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.fmoit.gov.ba/userfiles/file/Natura%25202000%2520-%2520Interpretation%2520Manual%2520LL.pdf&c=E,1,qAiPRQ8FWKhGsD6AJD-jiCkKoEGOPnSxepxLDHUHW2s5WDgYRcfaKKluhtoV4sr_g5pBGaAsiiYvjc0_VaNh7VFlEb2Yk7RyLFkcdivo2CPgeVK765Ej&typo=1


34

Subject area 2 - Identification of appropriate indicators and targets

SPAIN:

“Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en

España” (“Ecological bases for conservation of the habitat types of community interest in Spain”)

available in Spanish only: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-

protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_tip_hab_esp_bases_eco_preliminares.aspx

Camacho, A., Borja, C., Valero-Garcés, B.,Sahuquillo, M., Cirujano, S., Soria, J.M.,Rico, E., de la Hera,

A., Santamans, A.C., García de Domingo, A., Chicote, A. y Gosálvez, R.U. (2009). 31. Aguas

continentales retenidas. Ecosistemas leníticos de interior. (Standing Waters HCI group 31). Includes

the methods for the evaluation of the structure and function and future prospects of group 31 of HCI,

available in Spanish at:

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/31_tcm7-24056.pdf .

Included in “Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés

comunitario en España” (“Ecological bases for conservation of the habitat types of community

interest in Spain”)”

Satellite-Based Monitoring of Ecosystem Functioning in Protected Areas: Recent Trends in the Oak

Forests (Quercus pyrenaica Willd.) of Sierra Nevada (Spain) M.A. Dionisio, D. Alcaraz-Segura and J.

Cabello http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/27191.pdf

Special issue of Journal for Nature Conservation “Forest management and Natura 2000”, under

preparation, it will be published in the next few months

ITALY:

Biodiversità Indicatori Veneto a cura di Roberto Del Favero

https://www.regione.veneto.it/static/www/agricoltura-e-foreste/Biodiv.pdf

Giarrizzo, E., Burrascano, S., Chiti, T., de Bello, F., Lepš, J., Zavattero, L. and Blasi, C. (2017). Re-visiting

historical semi-natural grasslands in the Apennines to assess patterns of changes in species

composition and functional traits.

Giarrizzo, E., Burrascano, S. and Zavattero, L. (2015). New Methodological Insights for the

Assessment of Temporal Changes in Semi-Natural Dry Grasslands Plant Species Composition Based

on Field Data From the Northern Apennines. Hacquetia, 14(1).

FRANCE:

Prud’homme F. & Theau J.P., 2017. PHYTOSOCIOLOGIE ET AGRONOMIE A LA RENCONTRE DES

PRAIRIES FLEURIES. Actes des 5èmes rencontres naturalistes de Midi-Pyrénées à Auch en février

2016. Nature Midi-Pyrénées, Toulouse : 69-73.

IRELAND:

Conservation objectives for SACs in Ireland https://www.npws.ie/protected-sites; e.g. NPWS (2016)

Conservation Objectives: River Moy SAC 002298. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service,



http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/31_tcm7-24056.pdf

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/27191.pdf

https://www.regione.veneto.it/static/www/agricoltura-e-foreste/Biodiv.pdf#search/tomaso/_blank

https://www.regione.veneto.it/static/www/agricoltura-e-foreste/Biodiv.pdf#search/tomaso/_blank

https://www.npws.ie/protected-sites


35

Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Available at:

https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/conservation_objectives/CO002298.pdf

Subject area 3 - Restoration priorities

ROMANIA:

Project: restoration strategies of the deteriorated peatland ecosystems from Romania

(PeatRO) http://ibiol.ro/peatro/en/index.htm

Keenleyside, K.A., N. Dudley, S. Cairns, C.M. Hall, and S. Stolton (2012). Ecological Restoration for

Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 120pp.

https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PAG-018.pdf

ITALY:

Sitzia, T., & Trentanovi, G. (2011). Maggengo meadow patches enclosed by forests in the Italian Alps:

evidence of landscape legacy on plant diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(5), 945-961.

Orlandi, S., Probo, M., Sitzia, T., Trentanovi, G., Garbarino, M., Lombardi, G., & Lonati, M. (2016).

Environmental and land use determinants of grassland patch diversity in the western and eastern

Alps under agro-pastoral abandonment. Biodiversity and conservation, 25(2), 275-293.

Sitzia, Tommaso (2008) Ecological risk mapping in nature conservation and restoration plans. In:

Research on the natural heritage of the reserves Vincheto di Celarda and Val Tovanella (Belluno

province, Italy). Conservation of two protected areas in the context of a Life Project. Quaderni

Conservazione Habitat . Arti Grafiche Fiorini, Verona, pp. 309-321. ISBN 978-88-87082-98-2

http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/2175/

FINLAND:

Restoration prioritization for Finnish Natura 2000 areas using the Zonation analysis

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/bosland2016/restoratio

n_prioritization_for_finnish_natura_2000_areas_using_zonation_analysis_santtu_karaksela_bor201

6_en.pdf

..................................................................................................................................................................

Other general references

Diaz-Delgado R, Lucas, R & Hurford, C (eds) (due September 2017) The Roles of Remote Sensing in Nature

Conservation, Springer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands – pending

Hurford C, Schneider M & Cowx I (eds) (2010) Conservation Monitoring in Freshwater Habitats: Practical guide

and case studies. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. ISBN 978-1-4020-9277-0

Hurford C, Schneider M (eds) (2006) Monitoring nature conservation in cultural habitats: A practical guide and

case studies. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. ISBN 1-4020-3756-2

Hurford, C. (2006) Identifying the conservation priority: using limited resources to best effect. In: Hurford

C,Schneider M (eds) (2006) Monitoring nature conservation in cultural habitats: A practical guide and case

studies. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.



http://ibiol.ro/peatro/en/index.htm





http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/bosland2016/restoration_prioritization_for_finnish_natura_2000_areas_using_zonation_analysis_santtu_karaksela_bor2016_en.pdf




36

Annex III List of participants of the second Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar

Name Organisation Country Email

Ablinger, Robert

Chambre d´agriculture de la Haute-Autriche

Austria [email protected]

Anane, Monia FACE - European Federation for Hunting and Conservation

Belgium [email protected]

Angelini, Pierangela

ISPRA Italy [email protected]

Aronsson, Mora

ETC-BD, SLU Sweden [email protected]

Balcerzak, Jan General Directorate for Environmental Protection

Poland [email protected]

Barbos, Marius loan

SC GTM CO SRL Romania [email protected]

Baričević, Dario

University of Zagreb

Croatia [email protected]

Barzon, Monica

University of Padova

Italy [email protected]

Bellonzi, Marco



Berto, Paola Veneto Agricoltura Italy

Bizheva, Vanya

Balkan Center for Sustainability and Eco engineering -NP

Bulgaria [email protected]

Bleasdale, Andy

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Ireland [email protected]

Budniok, Marie-Alice

ELO Belgium [email protected]

Burrascano, Sabina

Department of Environmental Biology - Sapienza University of Rome


Busatto, Christina


Italy

Buschmann, Axel

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Germany [email protected]

Cabello, Javier University of Almería

Spain [email protected]

Camacho, Antonio

University of Valencia


mailto:[email protected]


37

Campagnaro, Thomas



Casella, Laura ISPRA Italy [email protected]

Causin, Lisa Regione del Veneto


Cavalli, Raffaele



Cernecky, Jan State nature conservancy of the Slovak Republic

Slovakia [email protected]

Checchinato, Antonio



Chomard, Emilie

Commission syndicale du pays de cize

France [email protected]

Cipot, Maja Ministry for Envirnment and Spatial Planning

Slovenia [email protected]

Cipriani, Marco European Commission


Codato, Daniele



Coignon, Bastien

Ministry of ecological transition and solidarity


Dalla Valle, Christina

Italy

De Marchi, Massimo



Dentant, Cédric

Ecrins National Park


De Osti, Mauro Regione del Veneto

Italy

Dolek, Matthias

Butterfly Conservation Europe


Durkošová, Jana

Ministry of the Environment


Frank, Georg Austrian Research Centre for Forests BFW


Gamper, Ulrike Office for Vegetation Ecology, Autonomous Province of Bolzano


García-Ventura, Diego

EUROPARC-Spain / Fernando González Bernáldez Foundation


Geszprych, Marek

The Federation of Agricultural Producers Unions


Gianoli, Federico






38

Goñi, Daniel Conatur, Cooperative Society


Hejduk, Janusz

National Council for Nature Protection


Hidalgo, Rafael

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food & Environment


Hodalić, Tomislava

Croatian Chamber of Agriculture


Hurford, Clive Natural Resources Wales

UK [email protected]

Hustak, Marian Unia regionalnych zdruzeni nestatnych lesov


Iacopino, Simone



Iannizzotto, Antonio

SOGESID Italy [email protected]

Ilijas, Ivana Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature


Iovu-Adrian, Biris

Ministry of Environment

Romania [email protected]

Jato, Ramon SARGA. Gobierno de Aragón


Jeffrey, Rebecca

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Ireland [email protected]

Jozsef Pal, Frink

National Institute of Research and Development in Forestry


Juricic, Srecko Ministry of Agriculture


Kaerlein, Marie Landcare Germany


Kanariev, Dimitar

National association "Bulgarian Black Sea"


Kanold, Anna Bavarian State Institute of Forestry


Koprivnikar, Mihael

KGZS Slovenia Slovenia [email protected]

Kotulak, Monika

CEEweb for Biodiversity

Hungary/Poland [email protected]

Kremer, François

European Commission


Langowski, Andrzej

General Directorate for Environmental Protection


Lasen, Cesare Private Italy [email protected]


39

Lis, Łukasz Regional Director for Environmental Protection in Rzeszów

Poland [email protected], [email protected]

Loreggian, Massimo

Agenzia veneta per l'Innovazione nel Settore Primario


Mäkelä, Katariina

Finnish Environment Institute SYKE

Finland [email protected]

Marchiori, Gianluca



Marx, Josef Bavarian Bauernverband


McIntosh, Neil ECNC Netherlands [email protected]

Miazga, Michal REC Poland Poland [email protected]

Michielon, Bruno



Mihaylov, Mihail

Ministry of Environment and Water


Mikosz, Emmanuelle

ELO Poland [email protected]

Minozzi, Federico

EUROPARC Germany [email protected]

Nascimbene, Juri

University of Bologna


Negrisolo, Enrico



Nummela, Tuija

Finnish Landowners Organization


O'Briain, Micheal

European Commission

Belgium micheal.o'[email protected]

Omeda, Concha

ATECMA Spain [email protected]

Pääkkö, Elisa Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland


Pappalardo, Salvatore


Italy

Pettiti, Laura Ministry of the Environment

italy [email protected]; [email protected]

Pietrzak, Dominik

Ministry of the Environment


Pignatti, Giuseppe

SISEF Italy

Piutti, Elena Veneto Agricoltura Italy

Plössnig, Christian

Dept. of Nature Conservation


Prud'Homme, François

Conservatoire botanique national des Pyrénées et de Midi-Pyrénées


Radić, Tajana Croatian Chamber of Agriculture


Radošević, Marko

Croatian forest ltd Croatia [email protected]


40

Rehklau, Werner

Bavarian Environment Agency


Rejt, Lukasz General Directorate for Environmental Protection


Roelofs, Jinthe ECNC The Netherlands

[email protected]

Rouveyrol, Paul

National Museum of Natural History


Rubin, Angelika

European Commission


Saez Lacave, Blanca

EASME Belgium [email protected]

Salogni, Gianluca

Regione del Veneto


Sánchez, Jorge R.

Tragsatec Spain [email protected]

Sánchez de Dios, Rut

Complutense University of Madrid


Scherzer, Cornelius

HTW Dresden Germany [email protected]

Schwarz, Matej

National Forest Centre Slovakia


Semenzato, Paolo


Italia [email protected]

Senitza, Eckart Pro Silva Austria Austria [email protected]

Šilić, Tea Northern Velebit National Park Public Institution


Silva, João Pedro

Neemo - EU LIFE Programme


Simola, Heikki Finnish Association for Nature Conservation


Sitzia, Tommaso



Skoberne, Peter

Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning


Smaranda, Samad John

Ministry of Environment


Sottovia, Lucio Provincia autonoma di Trento


Spulerova, Jana

ILE SAS Slovakia [email protected]

Struller, Kathrin

Landesbund für Vogelschutz (LBV)


Sułkowska, Małgorzata

Forest Research Institute


Tamas, Papp Milvus Group Romania [email protected]

Törvi, Liinu Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland




41

Tryfon, Eleni European Environment Agency

EU [email protected]

Tzvetkov, Petko

Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation


Vlachovicova, Miriam


Zavodnik, Anton

KGZS Savod Ljubljana


Zollner, Alois Bavarian State Institute of Forestry




42

Annex IV Projects presented at the Knowledge Market List of Knowledge Market presentations

1. Widely-spread invasive alien tree species and their effects on plant biodiversity

2. Identifying meadow coenoses attributable to the Natura 2000 habitats 6510 and 6520 in South Tyrol (Italy)

3. Monitoring species and habitats of community interest in Italy

4. Carpathians Unite

5. RESCOM LIFE project

6. Tools of forest management and conservation in Natura 2000 in Bulgaria

7. European deciduous forests and montane semi-natural grasslands

8. Oppla

9. FACE Biodiversity Manifesto

10. Monitoring of Community interest species and habits in the Slovak Republic

11. INCDS “Marin Drăcea

12. ELO projects

13. Dept Biology & Geology, University of Almeria

14. LIFE Nature and biodiversity in Slovenia

15. Nature conservation on military areas in Poland

16. LIFE programme

17.LIFE Redbosques

18. Landcare Associations

19. Results-based agri-environmental payment schemes in Ireland

20. Mountain farming in Austria

21. Restoration projects of Veneto Agricoltura

22. GISciense


43

1. Widely-spread invasive alien tree species and their effects on plant biodiversity

Title: "Widely-spread invasive alien tree species and their effects on plant biodiversity”

Authors: Thomas Campagnaro, Giovanni Trentanovi, Simone Iacopino, Tommaso Sitzia

Invasive alien species are well-known threat to Natura 2000 sites. Many IAS are tree species of possible

concern in Europe, such as black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima),

as well as black cherry (Prunus serotina), and silver wattle (Acacia dealbata). These tree species invade

different landscapes, hills and piedmont areas, Alpine valleys, and riparian ecosystems, and are a

threat to several habitat types, many of which important for biodiversity conservation. Their spread

has been favored by human activities for several purposes as they can provide an array of goods and

several ecosystem services. We present an overview of the invaded habitats, of the contrasting effects

of invasion to plant biodiversity, and of the related management measures.

Poster presentation, possibly with additional posters

Thomas Campagnaro

Department TESAF - Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

E [email protected]

2. Identifying meadow coenoses attributable to the Natura 2000 habitats 6510 and 6520 in

South Tyrol (Italy)

An article about a methodology for identifying meadow coenoses attributable to the Natura 2000 habitats 6510 and 6520 in South Tyrol (Italy) will be presented.

Article

Ulrike Gamber

Office for Vegetation Ecology, Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Italy

E [email protected]

3. Monitoring species and habitats of community interest in Italy

Handbook for monitoring species and habitats of community interest (Council Directive 92/43/EEC)

in Italy: habitat types.

Publication:

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/manuali-e-linee-guida/manuali-per-il-monitoraggio-

di-specie-e-habitat-di-interesse-comunitario-direttiva-92-43-cee-in-italia-habitat

Pierangela Angelini

ISPRA, Italy

E [email protected]



http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/manuali-e-linee-guida/manuali-per-il-monitoraggio-di-specie-e-habitat-di-interesse-comunitario-direttiva-92-43-cee-in-italia-habitat

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/manuali-e-linee-guida/manuali-per-il-monitoraggio-di-specie-e-habitat-di-interesse-comunitario-direttiva-92-43-cee-in-italia-habitat



44

4. Carpathians Unite

Poster presentation referring to the project "Carpathians Unite": The project is about open habitats

protection in Carpathian Mountain by using traditional shepherds knowledge.

Michal Miazga

REC Poland

E [email protected]

5. RESCOM LIFE PROJECT

Showcasing the progress made on alpine habitat evaluation and monitoring in the RESECOM LIFE Project in Aragon, Spain. Objectives of the RESCOM LIFE project include the assessment and monitoring the Conservation Status of EIC (plant species) and HIC (habitats) to accomplish the goals set out in articles 11 and 17 of the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, assessing the long term biodiversity effects of global change. Daniel Goñi

Conatur, Cooperative Society, Spain

E [email protected]

6. Tools of forest management and conservation in Natura 2000 in Bulgaria

Presented are various tools for management and conservation of forests in Natura 2000 network that have been developed and are under implementation in Bulgaria including:

- special management/conservation regimes adopted and enforced by the national legislation such as the Regulation on Forest Fellings and Regulation on forest inventory and planning;

- a methodology for assessing the index of old-growthness has been developed, fieldwork and surveys in selected areas were carried out and old-growth forests (OGFs) were identified and mapped on a national scale;

- 10% of the woodlands in Natura 2000 were declared as old-growth forests according an Order of the Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture and Food from Nov 2016. Currently, this comprises an area of 108 000ha. A map of old-growth forests in Bulgaria is also presented.

- FSC Certification and National Standard for forest certification. FSC certified forests in Bulgaria are almost 35% of the forest territory of the country.

- Key guidelines and toolkits have been developed and applied: Guidelines for assessing Favourable Conservation Status of NATURA 2000 species and habitat types in Bulgaria, the National Toolkit for identification and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forests, the Regimes for management of forest habitats in Natura 2000.

All this was achieved thanks to the fruitful collaboration between governmental institutions, scientific institutes and NGOs, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Executive Forest Agency, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Association of Parks in Bulgaria, WWF Bulgaria, Bulgarian Biodiveristy Foundation, Balkani Wildlife Society, Green Balkans, etc.

Poster presentation

Petko Tzvetkov

Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation, Bulgaria

E [email protected]



http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/434199

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/434199



45

7. European deciduous forests & montane semi-natural grasslands

Using biodiversity data to define indicators of conservation status

Here we describe two projects: the first focused on European deciduous forests, the second on

montane semi-natural grasslands.

The first project derives from a network of four universities and three research centers. It resulted in

a comprehensive dataset (more than 350 sampling units) encompassing France, Italy and Hungary on

six taxonomic groups and forest structure. The analyses that are being carried out on these data are

aimed at testing potential indicators of overall forest biodiversity. Part of these data derive from the

LIFE+ FAGUS (LIFE11/NAT/IT/135) for which dissemination material is available.

The second project introduced a new methodology to use historical vegetation relevés and databases

to assess the degree of change to which semi-natural grassland habitats were subjected since the

historical sampling (1966 to 1992). By revisiting the sampling sites along the Apennine chain we

pointed out not only the degree to which different sites changed in composition, but also the

environmental and management drivers of such change.

Sabina Burrascano

Department of Environmental Biology - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

E [email protected]

8. Oppla

Presenting information about Oppla: a platform that combines a knowledge marketplace, an enquiry

service and community in the field of nature based solutions for science, policy and practice.

The Oppla knowledge marketplace brings together the latest thinking on ecosystem services, natural

capital and nature-based solutions. One can find guidance, software, data and other useful

resources.

Furthermore, Oppla Community offers an easy-to-use system for networking with other members

from around the world and Ask Oppla crowd-sourced enquiry service, where members of the Oppla

community help to answer each other's questions.

Folders and information

Neil McIntosh

European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), the Netherlands

E [email protected]




46

9. FACE Biodiversity Manifesto

Poster and flyers presenting the FACE Biodiversity Manifesto (demonstrating the positive

contribution of hunting on biodiversity with a special focus on Alpine regions).

Monia Anane

FACE - European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, Belgium

E [email protected]

10. Monitoring of Community Interest habitats & species in Slovak Republic Two publications presenting the results of national monitoring of habitats and species of Community interest in the Slovak Republic with recent assessments and complex information related to obligations from Habitats directive prepared by expert nature protection organization - State nature conservancy of the Slovak Republic. Highlights: - complex monitoring of habitats and species on more than 10 000 monitoring plots and more than 16 000 field visits - more than 300 national and international experts involved - all habitats and species of Community interest according to Habitats directive covered by robust data set - new IT system for automatic assessment developed Janák, M., Černecký, J., Saxa, A., (eds.), 2015. Monitoring of animal species of Community interest in the Slovak Republic, results and assessment in the period of 2013 – 2015. Banská Bystrica: State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic. 300 pp. ISBN 978-80-8184-022-7 Šefferová Stanová, V., Galvánková, J., Rizman, I. (eds.), 2015. Monitoring of plants and habitats of Community interest in the Slovak Republic, Results and assessment in the period of 2013 – 2015. Banská Bystrica: State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic. 300 pp. ISBN 978-80-8184-023-4 Jan Cernecky State nature conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia E [email protected]

11. INCDS Marin Dracea INCDS “Marin Drăcea” is certified as an institution part of the Research and Development System of National Importance and as a Excellence Centre at national level in the field of Forest Biology and Forest Management, by the national authority for research and development. It is licensed for forest management planning, ecological reconstruction and watershed management, forest risk assessment, forest cartography, geodesics and photogrammetry, seeds quality and conservation, pesticides testing on behalf of forest certifying purposes.




47

Mihai Fedorca INCDS Marin Dracea, Romania E [email protected]

12. ELO projects A European multidisciplinary office for landowners and land managers.The ELO seeks to develop

European solutions to the challenges which will face European decision-makers in the years to come,

in particular now that the European Union has welcomed ten new Member States. At the same time

the ELO, supported by its Secretariat in Brussels, is best placed to advise on draft European

legislation which affects those who live and work in the countryside.

Information will be provided on various ongoing ELO projects.

Emmanuelle Mikosz European Landowners Organization (ELO), Poland E [email protected]

13. Department of Biology and Geology, University of Almeria The Department of Biology and Geology areas of expertise: botany, ecology, plant physiology, genetics, external geodynamics, microbiology, parasitology, animal production and zoology.

Poster Javier Cabello University of Almería, Spain E [email protected]

14. LIFE Nature and biodiversity in Slovenia

Best practices of LIFE Nature and biodiversity in Slovenia. Presentation of several LIFE projects in Slovenia mostly those working with species and habitats in the Alpine biogeographic region. In addition, information is provided on the Ministries project on capacity building for LIFE. The materials presented are:

- 2 self-standing posters (SI Natura2000 Management, LIFE Capacity building)

Leaflets and layman's reports of projects:

- LIFE Artemis - dealing with invasive species in forests; - 3 projects on large carnivores: Life Dinalp Bear, LIFE Slowolf, LIFE WolfAlps; - Weatman - dealing with weatlands; - LIFE to grasslands and SI Natura2000 Management.





48

Maja Cipot Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning, Slovenia E [email protected]

15. Nature conservation on military areas in Poland Books - "Nature conservation on military areas in Poland" Wojciech Mróz

Ecological consultancy, Poland E [email protected]

16. The LIFE programme Information about the LIFE programme and projects publications. NEEMO is responsible for the monitoring of LIFE projects (LIFE Action grants) and of NGOs that receive funding from the LIFE Programme (LIFE Operational Grants). Furthermore, NEEMO deals with all the communication aspects of the LIFE programme. A roll-up banner and publications João Pedro Silva Neemo - EU LIFE Programme, Belgium E [email protected]

17. LIFE REDBOSQUES" (LIFE15 GIE/ES/000809)

The RedBosques project aims to improve the management of Spanish Mediterranean forests included in Natura 2000, facilitating access of practitioners to state-of-the art knowledge. The ultimate goal is that forest managers effectively include biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation objectives in their daily practice.

Specifically, RedBosques seeks to:

• Outline baseline scenarios for assessing the conservation status of Mediterranean forests. • Develop criteria and tools for the design and implementation of forestry management

practices in Natura 2000 Mediterranean forests with objectives that regard biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation.

• Transfer state-of- the-art knowledge to target audience and stakeholders.

Roll-up banner, some fact sheets about the project, other publications of the EUROPARC Spanish Section in English

Diego García Ventura EUROPARC-Spain / Fernando González Bernáldez Foundation, Spain E [email protected]






49

18. Landcare Associations Information about Landcare Associations. Landcare Associations work in both Natura 2000 and non- Natura 2000 sites, and they can be used as a model to implement Natura 2000.

Brochures about Landcare Associations

Marie Kaerlein

Landcare Germany

E [email protected]

19. Results-based agri-environmental payment schemes in Ireland

Details of and material relating to results-based agri-environmental payment schemes in Ireland will

be presented by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This will include descriptions of the Burren

Programme, the AranLIFE project and a DG Environment funded RBAPS project in Ireland and

Navarra (Spain).

Andy Bleasdale

National Parks and Wildlife Services Ireland

E [email protected]

20. Mountain farming in Austria

In order to keep mountain farming alive, it needs to be considered in its context. One-sided and

impracticable nature conservation jeopardises mountain farming and degrades biodiversity in the

Alps.

Information will be given about:

- Problems encountered in mountain farming and by farmers in the Austrian Alps

- The future of Alpine farmers

- A holistic approach to nature conservation

Developers of concepts and ideas should also be equipped with knowledge of how to implement

these in practice. This is made possible by projects such as the Volunteer on a Farm project

launched by Maschienring Tirol, an Austrian agricultural service and support company. For questions

about volunteering on mountain farms, please get in touch with Viola Kirchmair on +43 5

9060700 or via e-mail [email protected].

Robert Ablinger

Landowners Autria

E [email protected]





50

21. Restoration projects of Veneto Agricoltura

Poster about restoration projects by Veneto Agricoltura.

Cristina Dalla Valle

Veneto Agricoltura

22. GIScience

Poster about GIScience Master Course

Federico Gianoli

GIScience Master Course

Natura 2000 Seminars - European...

Documents

Transcript of Natura 2000 Seminars - European...